Big Dawg KS

I think between the time the community preview ends and ArmA 3 is released a lot might change. Of course I'm sure there will still be things introduced now that will be present in ArmA 3. Like you said though, it's probably too early to know anything. Perhaps some of the devs can enlighten us?

Of course. You never mentioned the target was moving. It's also why I said to make sure the shooter is facing the target first.

That's a little more complicated: cfgarray = ["class1","class2","class3"]; _patches = configFile >> "CfgPatches"; _c = count _patches; _loop = true; _missing = false; // will become true if any class in CfgPatches is missing from cfgarray _n = 0; while{_loop}do{ _cur = _patches select _n; if(!_cur in cfgarray)then{ // Note: "in" is case sensitive, so classes in cfgarray must match those in the config file exactly _missing = true; _loop = false; }; _n = _n + 1; if(_n > _c)then{ _loop = false; }; };

Pessimism is my middle name (well, it should be). ;) Or maybe I'm just not so obsessed with flashy new technology...

{!isClass (configFile >> "CfgPatches" >> _X)} count cfgarray > 0; // returns true if number of cfgarray elements that aren't classes in CfgPatches is more than zero

I just checked and you are right; the walking animations are there and work. However I cannot see any running animations for that stance (rifle slung in front) in the ArmA 2 Anim PBO (or referenced in the allIneOne config). As you have described, when you move at running speed is when the problem occurs. A look at the config reveals that the running animation states for binoculars, for example state "AmovPercMrunSnonWbinDf_rfl", use the same files for civil running anims (in the example's case "AmovPercMrunSnonWnonDf.rtm"). These anims have the rifle proxy on the back. If those anim files do exist, they aren't where they should be and aren't configured properly...

It's a shame that people are so impatient. It hasn't been that long since they finished the SP implementation, so give them more time.

If he wants to do all of these, he'll need to use the EH:

Undercover Iron Front dev trying to build anticipation? :rolleyes:

Use a handleDamage event handler. If you don't return "_this select 2", they won't receive any damage.

If you're having trouble with the AI lowering their weapon, try this (make sure barbie starts facing ken): barbie disableAI "ANIM"; barbie playMove "AmovPercMstpSrasWrflDnon"; // assuming it's a rifle barbie is aiming, if not replace Wrfl with Wpst for a pistol barbie doTarget ken; Just remember to enableAI "ANIM" barbie if he(she?) needs to move afterwards.

Well for anyone who as ever read the R6 book or understand how counter-terror units are supposed to operate, Vegas (and its unjustified sequel) throws everything that was R6 out the window. I don't care whether the gameplay is good or not, it does not deserve the title of R6; no more than DR deserves the title of OFP. Until the plannining phase is brought back and the abnoxious cover-system removed, none of them will ever pass as a proper R6 game in my eyes.

Play with bots = kills galore = still fun. ;)

I haven't noticed the jumping, but I have witnessed that attaching objects to vehicles in more recent betas severely messed up the driver's pathfinding.

Yea, it's not a beta issue (and not an engine issue at all). There are simply missing animations for walking with binoculars and thus the wrong anims are currently used (civil walking anims where rifle is on back). Unless the BI artists get some time (off from working on ArmA 3 & TakOH I presume) to produce some new anims I doubt it'll ever get fixed. Sadly, art-related fixes seem to be extremely rare in ArmA 2 updates. This case even less likely since it requires completely new assets. :(

It's cool stuff and I understand the applications, but I still don't care for it that much. :) Can't explain why, but I just don't feel it's necessary to have PiP to feel immersed... Bad implementation however can do just the opposite; take away from the immersion.

FPDR RIP topic...

Actually ArmA 2 did have a default 360 controller scheme. IMO it wasn't very good but there was one there. Might be the same for ArmA 3 or might not... who knows?

Actually I think this is a bug, because you can still activate the radio triggers as a subordinate using the radio object on the map screen. Never really understood why...

Lock on to a target first.

Sweat? Wtf? Not that I have ever noticed... you playing the same game?

This poll is terrible and makes little sense. I don't want ArmA 3 to remove any features, but I also think that less new features and more polish (which can mean more optimization) would be a better policy.

I really hope nobody is trying to use ArmA 2 to train for combat. That's what VBS is for. ArmA 2 is a simulation game. It has a story and all other features of a typical game, but with a higher fidelity of realism than most others. Simulators also enforce realism and certain interactions with the player, ArmA 2 does not. ArmA 2 is a sandbox; it does not reflect all aspects of the real world (especially the lack of unnatural consequences).

I must learn to walk like that... :butbut:

Making doors destructible should already be possible in ArmA 2. You'd have to take that up with the BI artists though. We still don't know whether the destruction/damage model will be improved in ArmA 3 though, and if it is it might offer better solutions. On a seperate note, I hope BIS finally fully implements animations for opening doors (they were present in the ArmA 2 data, but not used).